“I have my work cut out for me” is how Dennis Kucinich explained his decision to change his long-standing “no” to “yes” for health care reform.

In an interview shortly before Sunday’s historic vote, the Ohio Democrat told Esquire that no one other than his wife knew he had changed his vote until he announced it publicly last Tuesday.

“”I did not notify the White House,” Kucinich said, putting to rest any rumors of a possible deal made on Air Force One, “the White House found out about it when I announced it from the press gallery. Because I just felt that this had to be a decision that I made on my own, without any coaxing one way or another.”

Kucinich told Esquire that his work is just beginning now that health care reform is law. His concern was that defeat of the bill would create a “gridlock” where nothing could get done. He said his concerns included that it took “sixteen years after the demise of the Clinton plan” and was facing the reality that there would be no turning back for at least twenty years if reform failed again.

Kucinich is still unhappy with the fact that this new law includes “for-profit” companies which he calls “quite predatory.” He will still continue to work to legislate a more universal system that he feels is more equitable and offers more solutions for the American people.

“I have my work cut out for me now in continuing the effort toward a much broader approach to health care reform,” Kucinich said, according to Esquire, “which would include attention to diet, nutrition, complementary alternative medicine, and empowering states to move forward with single-payer.”

“After careful discussions with the President and Speaker Pelosi,” Dennis Kucinich explained, “I’ve decided to cast a vote in favor of the legislation” thereby pretty much sealing the deal for Obama care.
The Ohio Democrat, who is as liberal as they get, spells a key victory for Obama who rode Kucinich aboard Air Force One on Monday for a town hall in Ohio.
Kucinich had been opposed to Obamacare because it contained no strong public option; he has been, and still is, an advocate for single-payer universal healthcare similar to European models.
Saying that “I do not retract those criticisms, I have doubts about the bill,” Kucinich explained that “the President’s visit to my district underscored the urgency” of the healthcare crisis.
Kucinich’s district in the Cleveland area has been hit very hard economically; his district office, he said doubles as a “social service” center where he intervenes to help constituents who have become unemployed and lost their healthcare.
“I understand the connection between poverty and healthcare…Health and healthcare is personal for each one of us,” Kucinich said defending his change of heart.
It will be interesting to watch how this affects Kucinich, his political career, his district, and Ohio in general. Wonder what Obama really offered him aboard the Presidential plane?

It appears that the plan by President Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi to ram the Senate’s version of ObamaCare through the Democrat-majority House is falling apart just one day after Obama commanded Democrats to get it done.

In addition to “dozens” of Democrats who object to the latest Obamacare because of its lack of solid anti-abortion language, Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich, the liberally-minded representative from Ohio, says he will vote “no” if the bill comes to the House floor, according to Fox News.

Kucinich, who voted no on the earlier House version of Obamacare, told Fox that he believes “health care is a basic right” and “not a privilege that you get from the benevolence of the insurance companies.”

When asked if “the bill isn’t liberal enough” to win his approval, Kucinich quickly shot off “I’m a centrist.”

Obama has invited Kucinich to the White House to discuss the legislation. When pressured by the interviewer as to whether Obama could say or do anything to convince him to change his vote (and what, if anything, that would be), Kucinich said, “I’m honored that the President wants to meet with me” but he added, “I didn’t say I would change my vote, I will just hear what he wants to say.”

Congressman Bart Stupak (D – Michigan) and several other House Democrats already have said that they will vote no if and when the Senate version comes to the House floor. Stupak co-authored, along with Representative Joe Pitts (R – Pennsylvania) the “Stupak Amendment” in the earlier House version which prohibited, in clear language, the use of Federal funds to perform abortions. Obamacare passed the House only because that language was in it.

The Senate, on the other hand, namely Leader Harry Reid (D – Nevada), removed the Stupak Amendment which has become an issue of contention now between both houses of Congress. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D – Maryland) has been trying to reassure House Dems that the bill still will prohibit federal dollars from going to abortions, but House members aren’t buying it. Their qualms about the Senate version have validity, especially after the President laid out his personal preferences for h.c. reform, agreeing with the Senate bill, which allows Federal funding for women’s community healthcare clinics which often perform abortions.

I received this email from Representative Dennis Kucinich (D – Ohio). The contents of Kucinich’s message (below) spell out clearly why a rush to judgment – when it comes to whether or not we go to war, or stay in one – can have dire consequences. The Bush Administration used whatever tactics were necessary to rush this country into war on two fronts. They had no plan, no strategy, and, in the case of Afghanistan, did not finish the job there before getting us involved with Iraq. Now, nearly a decade later, we are still trying to resolve the mess created by those reckless decisions of the previous Administration.

Rather than repeating the same mistakes, Obama is taking time to make an informed decision regarding Afghanistan by discussing possible solutions with everyone involved including the commanders in the field. He will, after hearing from all sides, make a decision, and probably a tough one; this is the President’s job – to make the hard choices.

Obama’s approach is more intelligent than Bush’s hectic utilization of troops and treasure. But those with vested interests in continuing this war, at the expense of the lives of American soldiers and of our economy, want to steer public opinion away from a President who thinks things through.

Let’s give President Obama a chance to get this country out of this mess. For the sake of our soldiers, and all future soldiers, let’s all practice some patience and give Obama this time to make, God willing, the right choices.

Dear Friends, Seven years ago this week the House of Representatives debated the Iraq War Resolution which was presented by President Bush. I made the case for NOT going to war. I analyzed the Bush war resolution, paragraph by paragraph, and pointed out "Key Issues" which argued against Congress voting to go to war. I distributed the attached analysis, personally, to over 200 members of Congress from October 2, 2002 until October 10, 2002 when the vote occurred. When you hear people say: "If only we had known then what we know now," remember, some did know of the false case for war against Iraq. And since so many know now that we should not have gone to war against Iraq, then why are we still there? Please read this analysis and let me know what you think. Thank you. P.S. – The "Whereas" clauses were verbatim from the 2003 Bush Iraq War Resolution. The "Key Issue" represented my commentary.

Analysis of Joint Resolution on Iraq by Dennis J. Kucinich October 2, 2002Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq; KEY ISSUE: In the Persian Gulf War there was an international coalition. World support was for protecting Kuwait. There is no world support for invading Iraq. Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism; Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated; KEY ISSUE: UN inspection teams identified and destroyed nearly all such weapons. A lead inspector, Scott Ritter, said that he believes that nearly all other weapons not found were destroyed in the Gulf War. Furthermore, according to a published report in the Washington Post, the Central Intelligence Agency has no up to date accurate report on Iraq’s WMD capabilities. Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998; KEY ISSUE: Iraqi deceptions always failed. The inspectors always figured out what Iraq was doing. It was the United States that withdrew from the inspections in 1998. And the United States then launched a cruise missile attack against Iraq 48 hours after the inspectors left. In advance of a military strike, the US continues to thwart (the Administration’s word) weapons inspections. Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235); Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; KEY ISSUE: There is no proof that Iraq represents an imminent or immediate threat to the United States. A "continuing" threat does not constitute a sufficient cause for war. The Administration has refused to provide the Congress with credible intelligence that proves that Iraq is a serious threat to the United States and is continuing to possess and develop chemical and biological and nuclear weapons. Furthermore there is no credible intelligence connecting Iraq to Al Qaida and 9/11. Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait; KEY ISSUE: This language is so broad that it would allow the President to order an attack against Iraq even when there is no material threat to the United States. Since this resolution authorizes the use of force for all Iraq related violations of the UN Security Council directives, and since the resolution cites Iraq’s imprisonment of non-Iraqi prisoners, this resolution would authorize the President to attack Iraq in order to liberate Kuwaiti citizens who may or may not be in Iraqi prisons, even if Iraq met compliance with all requests to destroy any weapons of mass destruction. Though in 2002 at the Arab Summit, Iraq and Kuwait agreed to bilateral negotiations to work out all claims relating to stolen property and prisoners of war. This use-of-force resolution enables the President to commit US troops to recover Kuwaiti property. Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council; KEY ISSUE: The Iraqi regime has never attacked nor does it have the capability to attack the United States. The "no fly" zone was not the result of a UN Security Council directive. It was illegally imposed by the United States, Great Britain and France and is not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution. Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; KEY ISSUE: There is no credible intelligence that connects Iraq to the events of 9/11 or to participation in those events by assisting Al Qaida. Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens; KEY ISSUE: Any connection between Iraq support of terrorist groups in the Middle East, is an argument for focusing great resources on resolving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. It is not sufficient reason for the US to launch a unilateral preemptive strike against Iraq. Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations; KEY ISSUE: There is no connection between Iraq and the events of 9/11. Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself; KEY ISSUE: There is no credible evidence that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. If Iraq has successfully concealed the production of such weapons since 1998, there is no credible evidence that Iraq has the capability to reach the United States with such weapons. In the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq had a demonstrated capability of biological and chemical weapons, but did not have the willingness to use them against the United States Armed Forces. Congress has not been provided with any credible information, which proves that Iraq has provided international terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949; KEY ISSUE: The UN Charter forbids all member nations, including the United States, from unilaterally enforcing UN resolutions. Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677"; KEY ISSUE: The UN Charter forbids all member nations, including the United States, from unilaterally enforcing UN resolutions with military force. Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688"; KEY ISSUE: This clause demonstrates the proper chronology of the international process, and contrasts the current march to war. In 1991, the UN Security Council passed a resolution asking for enforcement of its resolution. Member countries authorized their troops to participate in a UN-led coalition to enforce the UN resolutions. Now the President is asking Congress to authorize a unilateral first strike before the UN Security Council has asked its member states to enforce UN resolutions. Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime; KEY ISSUE: This "Sense of Congress" resolution was not binding. Furthermore, while Congress supported democratic means of removing Saddam Hussein it clearly did not endorse the use of force contemplated in this resolution, nor did it endorse assassination as a policy.

The two Presidential candidates are supposed to be the declared “leaders” of their respective parties but, that having been said, neither has demonstrated leadership skill when it comes to dealing with their own party members in the past few days. This lack of leadership appears to be much worse for McCain who gambled on being the Hero of the Bailout Crisis and lost big time in both the polls and with his own party members in the Congress.

But both Obama and McCain are now probably scratching their heads wondering what will come next in the strange politics evolving over this financial bailout mess. While both campaigns expected passage of the massive billion dollar rescue program…each having already prepared celebratory ads taking credit for its passage…the bill’s failure in the House gave each candidate a reality check and wake up call that the American people are speaking with a very loud voice this year.

In what MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow describes as “cats barking and dogs purring” the Democratic Party (and Obama) seem to be trying to, at least, work toward a more unified image than the “leaderless” Republicans, according to Maddow. Even though Obama appears to be supporting Congress’ taking action on the financial crisis, he is also aligning himself with those Democrats opposed by meeting them on common grounds of protecting the average American against a handout to Wall Street greed and irresponsibility. Obama, unlike McCain, has indicated that the only way he would support a rescue program was if it protects the American taxpayers and homeowners as well as having oversight rather than the tsar-like powers for the Secretary of the Treasury in the current bill (see Section 8 of bailout text which gives full authority to the Secretary without review by the Courts or any other authority).

With that in mind, Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) may have a plan that can bring everyone together…including those Republicans who broke with the Administration and their party’s candidate to oppose the current “bailout” legislation.

Kucinich was one of 95 Democrats (of 235 Democrats) who opposed the $700 billion bailout bill thereby breaking with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) and accounting for a full 40% of House Democrats. In an e-mail sent out by Kucinich, he describes his and the other Representatives’ reasons for taking a united stand against both parties’ strong arming scare tactics in favor of the American People:

“Yesterday marked a day that will go down in history, when Congressional Democrats and Republicans alike took on full responsibility to protect the interests of taxpaying Americans, and defeated the deceptive bail out bill, defying the dictates of the Administration, the House Majority Leadership, the House Minority Leadership and the special interests on Wall Street.“

The rest of the letter from Kucinich details WHY we MUST take action…just NOT this action that the Administration and some in Congress want us to rush to passage; he also details what we should be doing instead.

“Obviously Congress must consider quickly another course. There are immediate issues which demand attention and responsible action by the Congress so that the taxpayers, their assets, and their futures are protected.

We MUST do something to protect millions of Americans whose homes, bank deposits, investments, and pensions are at risk in a financial system that has become seriously corrupted. We are told that we must stabilize markets in order for the people to be protected. I think we need to protect peoples’ homes, bank deposits, investments, and pensions, to order to stabilize the market.

We cannot delay taking action. But the action must benefit all Americans, not just a privileged few. Otherwise, more plans will fail, and the financial security of everyone will be at risk.

The $700 billion bailout would have added to our existing unbearable load of national debt, trade deficits, and the cost of paying for the war. It would have been a disaster for the American public and the government for decades and maybe even centuries to come.

To be sure, there are many different reasons why people voted against the bailout. The legislation did not regard in any meaningful way the plight of millions of Americans who are about to lose their homes. It did nothing to strengthen existing regulatory structures or impose new ones at the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Reserve in order to protect investors. There were no direct protections for bank depositors. There was nothing to stop further speculation, which is what brought us into this mess in the first place.

This was a bailout for some firms (and investors) on Wall Street, with the idea that in doing so there would be certain, unspecified, general benefits to the economy.

This is a perfect time to open a broader discussion about our financial system, especially our monetary system. Such a discussion is like searching for a needle in a haystack, and then, upon finding it, discussing its qualities at great length. Let me briefly describe the haystack instead.

Here is a very quick explanation of the $700 billion bailout within the context of the mechanics of our monetary and banking system:

The taxpayers loan money to the banks. But the taxpayers do not have the money. So we have to borrow it from the banks to give it back to the banks. But the banks do not have the money to loan to the government. So they create it into existence (through a mechanism called fractional reserve) and then loan it to us, at interest, so we can then give it back to them.

Confused?

This is the system. This is the standard mechanism used to expand the money supply on a daily basis not a special one designed only for the “$700 billion” transaction. People will explain this to you in many different ways, but this is what it comes down to.

The banks needed Congress’ approval. Of course in this topsy turvy world, it is the banks which set the terms of the money they are borrowing from the taxpayers. And what do we get for this transaction? Long term debt enslavement of our country. We get to pay back to the banks trillions of dollars ($700 billion with compounded interest) and the banks give us their bad debt which they cull from everywhere in the world.

Who could turn down a deal like this? I did.

The globalization of the debt puts the United States in the position that in order to repay the money that we borrow from the banks (for the banks) we could be forced to accept International Monetary Fund dictates which involve cutting health, social security benefits and all other social spending in addition to reducing wages and exploiting our natural resources. This inevitably leads to a loss of economic, social and political freedom.

We are at a teachable moment on matters of money and finance. In the coming days and weeks, I will share with you thoughts about what can be done to take us not just in a new direction, but in a new direction which is just.”

Kucinich also encourages every American to become more familiar with our monetary system and the topic of debt with an animated documentary

“Money as Debt”which Kucinich says “is a useful, though by no means definitive, introduction to the topic of debt and the monetary system.”(Note: Bold text has been added here to highlight important passages.)